The Instigator
Indra
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
tmar19652
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points

It is for the greater good of society that data obtained unethically from past studies is utilised?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,401 times Debate No: 31294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Indra

Con

It is for the greater good of society that data obtained
unethically from past studies is utilised in
contemporary health care research.
tmar19652

Pro

You have the burden of proof. I will argue that there is no universal moral standard, so therefore no medical actions can be unethical.
Debate Round No. 1
Indra

Con

This loss, it seems, would be less important than the far reaching moral loss to medicine if the data are use in current medical research.
Despite the arguments that the Nazi experiments were unscientific, the data does exist. Although the data is morally tainted and soaked with the blood of its victims, one cannot escape confronting the dreaded possibility that perhaps the doctors at Dachau actually learned something that today.
tmar19652

Pro

Since the data already exists, and that data can be used to save lives, it is for the greater good of society to use that data for the purpose of saving/enriching the lives of those suffering from medical problems. If we were to simply stop utilizing that data, we would have to perform more unethical studies to re-obtain that data, thus people like the victims at dachau would have died completley in vain. Therefore it is for the greater good of society that data obtained unethically from past studies is utilised!

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Indra

Con

Indra forfeited this round.
tmar19652

Pro

My opponent has forfeited and I dismantled their case. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
Pro might want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because someone doesn't say anything doesn't mean someone has given up.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
Indratmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for the pro side and also forfeited.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
Indratmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: BoP is on the affirmative. Pro didn't prove its case. Con was skeptical. Pro also lied about BoP being on Con, so conduct was awarded. Con also makes a considerable argument over the process of Nazi research that Pro reduces down to its results, ignoring how research is used to facilitate processes into the future.